SkinsJock wrote:Campbell was and is good enough to be a QB in the NFL .. THAT is ALL

He's not good enough to be a starter and he never will be for one reason, he does not think at NFL speed. You said NFL QB, and I won't reject backup, but he'll never be an able starter for that reason.

to be clear - ALL I said was that Campbell is an NFL QB - that is a fact

I'm not saying that he's bad but just that he's still getting a check from a franchise - he's an NFL QB

actually - I'm VERY surprised he's even a back-up QB

I'm not saying he's a bad QB - he's just VERY lucky to have a job as an NFL QB

P A T I E N C E - Snyder needs to just 'butt out' and give Scot time to figure out who he needs in the FO, who he needs as the HC and what players fit what he thinks is a good system for this franchise - it's a mess & it will take time

fetus wrote:Mark Shark I will not say taht JC was a BAD qb but I will say he wasn't great, I have never tried to argue that and never will.

You won't argue it because you can't. There is nothing out there to even remotely make an out-of-this world arguement that JC was "great". You couldn't even argue that he was an average starter. He was a below average player. He killed this franchise for 4 years not to include wasted draft picks.

fetus wrote:I liked JC while he was here and thought he would end up here for a while, I was wrong.

Yup. When actual football minds got into DC, JC was the first thing to go. I don't think that is a cooincidence.

fetus wrote:I liked him when he was in Oakland and he seemed to do well there until he got hurt and Palmer came in.

He was never doing well there. That is SPECIFICALLY why they brought in Palmer. His injury wasn't the reason he was demoted -- it was his play. He was sitting behing one of the best OLs at the time in the NFL and -- once again -- putting up at best mediocre numbers. You put a decent QB back there like Stafford or even Rivers and they would be lighting it up. Instead JC was doing what he did best -- missing reads, not scoring TDs (19 TDs in 19 games), and dumping the ball to TEs and RBs (65% of all JC's completions went to either a TE or RB....).

If you like QBs that don't put up points and can't lead an offense, then I can understand why you liked him --- but if you are like most of the fans out there that want a leader, scoring TD (like RGIII), then I'm not sure what your thought process is.

fetus wrote:We aren't going to agree on anything so this is a pointless debate on both ends for us....

I don't think the purpose here is to agree. It is more to understand the truth -- which is clear.

Real excited for this Sunday. I think this will be your quarterbacks toughest test to date. Not sure how he's going to handle having guys like JPP and Kiwi flying at him, but we are certainly going to find out a lot about him. We need to hit him early to make sure he thinks twice about taking off and running

fetus wrote:Mark Shark I will not say taht JC was a BAD qb but I will say he wasn't great, I have never tried to argue that and never will.

You won't argue it because you can't. There is nothing out there to even remotely make an out-of-this world arguement that JC was "great". You couldn't even argue that he was an average starter. He was a below average player. He killed this franchise for 4 years not to include wasted draft picks.

fetus wrote:I liked JC while he was here and thought he would end up here for a while, I was wrong.

Yup. When actual football minds got into DC, JC was the first thing to go. I don't think that is a cooincidence.

fetus wrote:I liked him when he was in Oakland and he seemed to do well there until he got hurt and Palmer came in.

He was never doing well there. That is SPECIFICALLY why they brought in Palmer. His injury wasn't the reason he was demoted -- it was his play. He was sitting behing one of the best OLs at the time in the NFL and -- once again -- putting up at best mediocre numbers. You put a decent QB back there like Stafford or even Rivers and they would be lighting it up. Instead JC was doing what he did best -- missing reads, not scoring TDs (19 TDs in 19 games), and dumping the ball to TEs and RBs (65% of all JC's completions went to either a TE or RB....).

If you like QBs that don't put up points and can't lead an offense, then I can understand why you liked him --- but if you are like most of the fans out there that want a leader, scoring TD (like RGIII), then I'm not sure what your thought process is.

fetus wrote:We aren't going to agree on anything so this is a pointless debate on both ends for us....

I don't think the purpose here is to agree. It is more to understand the truth -- which is clear.

ok thanks for clearing that all up... I'm not going to banter on anymore with this.
There are always 2 pairs of eyes that see 2 diff things so, I leave this alone.
I want RG3, I'm not saying that I didn't. I just said I like Jason... sorry that my opinion differs from yours

markshark84 wrote:The JC excuse-making on this cite was unreal for close to 3 years.

At one point I felt as if there were only 2 people (myself and RayinAustin) on this cite that actually understood how BAD JC really was and how much he was setting back this franchise. Kazoo, I even recall early on a couple (not a ton but a couple) pro-JC posts from you too.....

Because Campbell wasn't a great QB, therefore the most negative, shrill critics must have been right?

I think there was quite a range of realistic perspectives on him during his time in DC. Yes, there were some unrealistic excuses, just as some others seemed hell bent on finding fault with the way he drank his Gatorade (cough), and both extremes were . . . well, extreme.

Keep in mind that even though he departed after an unsuccessful stint, you could still have been pretty wrong about him, as far as facts were concerned.

Alright now, the other half of the Ray&Mark team is here to speak up, and your version of revisionist history is not at all the way I recall things either.

And just what do you mean we still "could have been wrong"?? He bombed in Raider land too, and managed to play 19 games over 2 seasons, and no real difference in his production over what he managed to do here. And now he's in Chicago, who all should be in church every sunday praying that nothing happens to Cutler.

I suppose you're right that we "could have been wrong" ... but so far, we've been right

And I recall more than "some" unreasonable excuses ... I distinctly recall the excuse generator that could have produced enough juice to run New York 24/7 ....

"no QB would be successful behind this o-line"

"Jason was set up for failure with this team"

"he just needs time to learn the system"

"the receivers are too short, and Santana Moss is not the same player"

"JC has had how many offensive coordinators?"

"All rookies need 2-3 years to learn an offense"

"this year is gonna be Jason's breakout season" (this happened for 3 years)

In response to Todd Collins coming in and lighting up the offense and winning 4 straight games (after a 4 game slide) and taking us to the playoffs .... "Collins just knows the system inside out being with Saunders for years".

So yes, Jason sucked bad ... and we were the main two guys here that refused to drink the JC kool-aide and pointed out his irredeemable unfixable flaws of which there were too many to be a starting NFL QB. Slow mentally in decisions and reading coverages ... slow release ... not very football savvy or improvising .... no feel for the game ... lousy pocket presence ... actually rolled into more sacks than he rolled away from ... had to be reminded to step up into the pocket ... inaccurate on both short and long throws ... no touch on short throws ... stared down receivers .... and a perpetual deer in the headlights when under pressure. He occasionally got into a rhythm and showed flash of good, but it was always just a teaser that he couldn't deliver on consistently. He was Mr. 3 and out when it counted, and the guy couldn't throw a TD pass outside the 20 yard line if you took his entire family hostage and gave him an entire season to throw one. The worst part was that he was never actually able to improve in any of these areas of weakness. I mean he left Washington as the same guy that arrived .. and he picked up right where he left off here, and was vintage Jason Campbell in Oakland too.

But you're right that RG3 and Jason should not be mentioned in the same conversation. And I dare say that could just as easily apply to Captain Kirk too .... Cousins is a better QB right now, than Jason ever was or ever will be. He even made Grossman look good ..... Jason and Beck are the two worst QB's ever to put on the Burgundy & Gold, since Danny Awful.

markshark84 wrote:The JC excuse-making on this cite was unreal for close to 3 years.

At one point I felt as if there were only 2 people (myself and RayinAustin) on this cite that actually understood how BAD JC really was and how much he was setting back this franchise. Kazoo, I even recall early on a couple (not a ton but a couple) pro-JC posts from you too.....

Because Campbell wasn't a great QB, therefore the most negative, shrill critics must have been right?

I think there was quite a range of realistic perspectives on him during his time in DC. Yes, there were some unrealistic excuses, just as some others seemed hell bent on finding fault with the way he drank his Gatorade (cough), and both extremes were . . . well, extreme.

Keep in mind that even though he departed after an unsuccessful stint, you could still have been pretty wrong about him, as far as facts were concerned.

Alright now, the other half of the Ray&Mark team is here to speak up, and your version of revisionist history is not at all the way I recall things either.

And just what do you mean we still "could have been wrong"?? He bombed in Raider land too, and managed to play 19 games over 2 seasons, and no real difference in his production over what he managed to do here. And now he's in Chicago, who all should be in church every sunday praying that nothing happens to Cutler.

I suppose you're right that we "could have been wrong" ... but so far, we've been right

And I recall more than "some" unreasonable excuses ... I distinctly recall the excuse generator that could have produced enough juice to run New York 24/7 ....

"no QB would be successful behind this o-line"

"Jason was set up for failure with this team"

"he just needs time to learn the system"

"the receivers are too short, and Santana Moss is not the same player"

"JC has had how many offensive coordinators?"

"All rookies need 2-3 years to learn an offense"

"this year is gonna be Jason's breakout season" (this happened for 3 years)

In response to Todd Collins coming in and lighting up the offense and winning 4 straight games (after a 4 game slide) and taking us to the playoffs .... "Collins just knows the system inside out being with Saunders for years".

So yes, Jason sucked bad ... and we were the main two guys here that refused to drink the JC kool-aide and pointed out his irredeemable unfixable flaws of which there were too many to be a starting NFL QB. Slow mentally in decisions and reading coverages ... slow release ... not very football savvy or improvising .... no feel for the game ... lousy pocket presence ... actually rolled into more sacks than he rolled away from ... had to be reminded to step up into the pocket ... inaccurate on both short and long throws ... no touch on short throws ... stared down receivers .... and a perpetual deer in the headlights when under pressure. He occasionally got into a rhythm and showed flash of good, but it was always just a teaser that he couldn't deliver on consistently. He was Mr. 3 and out when it counted, and the guy couldn't throw a TD pass outside the 20 yard line if you took his entire family hostage and gave him an entire season to throw one. The worst part was that he was never actually able to improve in any of these areas of weakness. I mean he left Washington as the same guy that arrived .. and he picked up right where he left off here, and was vintage Jason Campbell in Oakland too.

But you're right that RG3 and Jason should not be mentioned in the same conversation. And I dare say that could just as easily apply to Captain Kirk too .... Cousins is a better QB right now, than Jason ever was or ever will be. He even made Grossman look good ..... Jason and Beck are the two worst QB's ever to put on the Burgundy & Gold, since Danny Awful.

Just to set the record straight

He was better for us than Brunell was. Brunell was Gibbs' worse decision ever.

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan